User talk:Airtram3
Please note the use of the Show Preview button. This is best when making changes to an article, so that you don't make repeated saves and then have to re-edit the article to correct any errors made. It allows for all of your changes to be made at once. -- Sulfur 14:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Preview! As noted above, please make use of the Preview button. Making 14 changes to a page over the course of ~30 minutes is just not kosher. It's best to preview your changes before saving them to the database, elsewise excess garbage changes get saved that do not need to be saved, and it looks bad on your editing abilities. Thanks. -- Sulfur 13:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Once again, I'm forced to mention the "Preview" button when you're editing pages for the database. You've been constantly editing pages, which is not good for the database or anyone else attempting to work on any particular article that you happen to be working on, due to repeated edit conflicts. Please take the time to preview your changes rather than saving them, re-editing, saving that, re-editing, and so forth. -- Sulfur 13:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC) :While your contributions are much appreciated, I must reiterate what Sulfur said above. Please use the preview button when editing to avoid excessive database load and clutter on the recent changes. While I can understand making several edits at a time on a few pages here and there (I've certainly been guilty of that), continuously doing so on multiple pages has to stop. If you cannot adhere to this policy, a temporary block on your account may become necessary, especially if you do so while ignoring this talk page. If you replied here, it would let us know that you have read and acknowledged our policies and are at least making an attempt to adhere to them. So, again, please use the preview option when editing. Thank you. --From Andoria with Love 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC) ::How easy it would be if this was a physical space where I could actually find someone to teach the skills the Help Menus are not teaching me. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Instead of reading suggestions, I am reading veiled threats - use the preview button or else. I know when I am being buttered - your contributions are much appreciated, but then you say they are excess garbage changes that do not need to be saved, then how is a preview button going to work? The preview button shows the edits I am making, the very ones people are now complaining about. As for the geographical entries, when did a state or a country become a region? I have been always trained to see them as different - California is a state in the Western Pacific region of America, not California is a region in the region of the Western Pacific region of America. I was correcting what I saw as typograpical errors. (The help menu is not even helpful when I am attempting to write a summary.) If you feel my contributions are ultimately harmful to the community, you have my permission to remove me from the database.--Airtram3 16:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC) :Well, the only problem I see with your contributions is that you were making constant edits rather than using the show preview button to assist you in editing. Beyond that, there's nothing else wrong with your editing. The thing with the California and Cleveland is a minor mistake anyone can make. Honestly, I really don't see a reason to stop contributing; all you need to do is use the show preview button more and, of course, review our for a better understanding of what is accepted here and what is not (which is something everyone should do). That said, could you perhaps be more specific as to what other editing skills you feel you are lacking? If the help page couldn't help, perhaps we can. :) --From Andoria with Love 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC) I think that what both I and Shran are trying to say re: the preview button and the repeated edits is that when you are making changes to an article, because of the repeated edits (and thus the "excess garbage changes"), it appears to the other users of the site that you are using the Save button to view your changes to see if they look correct or not (typos, bad links, or otherwise), especially when there are 3-4 changes in the space of about a minute. I personally have no problem with someone writing an episode summary (for example) and saving the page 4-5 times over the course of half an hour as they save their work on each act of the show (for example). Where I have issue is when someone adds a sentence with a link to an article, then on the next save a minute or so later fixes a typo, changes a link to attempt to make it "blue" from "red", then on the next save changes the link again to try to make it work again, etc. In those cases, which were what some of your edits and saves have been, those are the "excess garbage changes" which are being referred to. And hey, don't fret too much, most Wiki editors don't use the preview button when they first start working. As long as they eventually learn how to use it, it's all good! :) -- Sulfur 16:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC) ::Thank you, Sulfur. And in addition, Airtram3, do not take what I said above as a threat – it was notification that making constant edits after being asked not to is considered disruptive and may result in a temporary block until the user agrees not to make constant edits. I did not invent this policy, but I do enforce it. If you had continued to make constant edits, I then would have given you one or two warnings in which I would have again asked you to limit your edits. Only then would I have temporarily blocked you from editing (maybe for an hour or two, if that, or until you had agreed to stop making constant edits). In addition, I was not trying to say your edits were excess garbage, I was trying to say that you didn't need to save each bit of information at one time then go back and fix mistakes then go back again and fix more mistakes when you can fix all or most mistakes in one save using the show preview button. As for the state & city pages, if you have an issue with how they are worded, then please try to change the sentence without removing any of the links. You can also bring the issue up for discussion on an article's talk page (for example, Talk:California). Now, having said all that, please keep in mind that we are trying to help you, not ridicule you or your contributions, so please don't take things that way. --From Andoria with Love 16:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Building the web Regarding my reverting your edits to the Cleveland and California articles, please see Memory Alpha:Build the web. Thanks! :) --From Andoria with Love 04:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Piped links FYI, when creating a pleural in a linked word, you don't need to use a piped link, you can simply add "s" to the end of the link, outside the brackets. In other words, rather than using starships, used starships instead. Saves a bit of typing, and it's better to avoid a piped link if you can. -- Renegade54 15:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Separating references First of all: you're doing a great work with the TNG episodes and all the new articles you're creating. I wish somebody would do the same with all the stubbish Voyager episodes ;-) Concerning the references: We include everything that is mentioned in an episode, no matter if it is only referred to in that particular episode (or mentioned for the first time) or if it is one of the more general things, like bridge, Federation, tractor beam or whatever. We do create an "Additional references" section only for stuff that's solely visible on LCARS displays, graphics and similar stuff and was not mentioned in dialogue. So, instead of splitting the references into two sections, like you're doing at the moment with the TNG season 1 episodes, please leave everything together in one section, and if something is just seen on a graphic or something similar, we can create the "Additional references" section. --Jörg 14:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC) :Hi Airtram. In the above discussion, you wrote that you'd rather read helpful comments than "veiled threats". The above comment by Jörg is surely meant to be helpful. It would be nice if you could join us here or on one of the other talk pages where your edits are discussed because, obviously, they need to be talked about. Just ignoring this will not make it any better - this is not supposed to be a "veiled threat", but we'll have to keep things in check somehow... :) -- Cid Highwind 11:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC) ::Regarding references, I am proceeding with what Jorg recommended. Changes have been made. --Airtram3 12:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC) :There might have been a misunderstanding between Jörg and you. While we want all references that were made to be in just one section (exception: things we only saw on LCARS displays), we don't necessarily want this section to contain everything that was mentioned or seen just indirectly. The References section shouldn't contain a link to starship, or planet, for example, because those are common "everyday" objects in the world of Trek. Instead, the references section should be restricted to items that are "special" in regard to a specific episode. I hope that clears things up a little... -- Cid Highwind 12:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC) ::Yep, let's take transporter. Somebody is seen being beamed away in many many episodes, but we wouldn't include it in the reference section of every episode. We would include a reference in an episode where something important is revealed about the transporter, its range, for example. If there is something special gathered about something in an episode, the link to that something can be added to the reference section. It's good to take a look at the relevant article. If in the text there is a reference to that certain episode, meaning something important enough is mentioned or seen about the reference in a given episode, it's okay to add the entry to the reference section. ::Two examples: Livingston was seen in many episodes, still that doesn't mean we include him in every reference section. It's okay to include him in "Lonely Among Us, as there is a scene where Data examins him with his magnifying glasses (which is also mentioned in the Livingston article). There is no reason to mention him in "Code of Honor" on the other hand, as he is just seen in the very background. ::Another one: The NCC-7100 is seen in almost every episode. There are two episodes however, where we get a close up of the model or somebody interacts with it (those episodes being "Man of the People" and "Who Watches the Watchers?" respectively). In all other episodes, especially the ones where the model was NOT seen, we don't need a reference. ::And: though the bridge, a turbolift and other rooms are seen in many episodes, we don't need to put them in the reference sections of the episode. Again, only if they state in an episode that turbolifts are made from polyduranium, for example, then we could add a link to the reference section. Hope that makes it clear, English not being my mother tongue, I hope what I wrote makes some sense now ;-) --Jörg 12:24, 21 January 2007 (UT) Great stuff Just wanted to let you know I'm glad you decided not to leave. You've created some fine additions to MA recently. Guess what: No "...but..." this time ;-) So, welcome once again! --Jörg 12:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)